What "Building history" means, and why we don't rush it

Scroll to the bottom section of the board and you'll sometimes see routes labeled "Building history," shown dimmer than the rest. That's not a bug or a placeholder — it's an honest state we show on purpose, for a specific reason.

The rule

A route needs at least 7 distinct days of accumulated price history before we'll classify it as a deal — or rule it out as "priced, not a deal." An average built on 2 or 3 days of data isn't statistically meaningful yet; calling something a 25% discount off a 2-day average is a much weaker claim than the same math off a real 30-day trailing average. Below that 7-day threshold, we'd rather say "not enough data yet" than dress up a shaky number as a confident one.

Why it's visually dimmed, not just labeled

An earlier version of the board treated every card the same regardless of how much history backed it — a genuinely misleading presentation, since "no real signal yet" and "priced and not currently a deal" look identical to a reader skimming the page. The dimmed treatment (technically a .grid-dimmed style) exists specifically so a route without enough history reads as visually different at a glance, not just in the fine print.

No backfilling, ever

A missing day — a fetch that didn't return a result — is simply skipped, never backfilled with a guessed or repeated price. A synthetic number would quietly corrupt the exact average every other calculation on the site depends on. Full details on that average in how we rank deals.

See today's board